"We want the occupation of Islam in the entire world. Islam does not permit democracy or election." (more here)

Of all the incomprehensible assahattery, this beats all. Obama, the jihad president, has all but surrendered to the global jihad. If we had declared war on Islamic jihad, that would be one thing. But Islamic fundamentalists declared war on the West, and they haven't surrendered. We have.

This is proof positive of every prediction and analysis I made during the election. The accusations against me and those who shared my view flew fast and furious. Obama was born a Muslim and raised in the largest Muslim country in the world. He studied Koran and took Islamic studies while growing up in Jakarta. He never left Islam. And I wrote at Israel National News back in 2007 that it mattered. "Right wing nuts" were accused of fear mongering and of calling Obama a secret Muslim. Frankly, it doesn't matter if Obama is or isn't a secret Muslim. If he were a "crypto Muslim," what would he do differently? Nothing. The abandonment of the Jewish people to jihad, the backing of the mullahcracy in Iran, the tacit approval of Hamas and Hezballah, the Cairo speech, the attendance to the Alliance of Civilizations summit in Istanbul, the invitation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference secretary general to the White House, the backing of Ahmadinejad ally Venezuela, the creation of a high level division at the State department for outreach to the ummah (Muslim world community), the Department of Justice sponsoring an ISNA conference booth, the deliberate vacancy of the envoy on Anti-Semitism, the list goes on and on ..................

"War on terror" was always a deeply flawed term, but the Obama
Administration is not discarding it in favor of any more realistic or
accurate alternative. "White House: 'War on terrorism' is over:
'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms," by Jon Ward
and Eli Lake in the Washington Times, August 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism
official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside
the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said
John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who
outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its
violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous
agenda."

And of course that agenda is advanced via terrorism, as well as by other means, but never mind.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the
administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific
directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used
the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but
has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama
administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create
an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign
governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic
institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will
do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is
wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to
purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which
"risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately
seek but in no way deserve."

The unspoken assumption is that the United States has the power or
prestige in the Islamic world to confer or deny Islamic legitimacy.
This is, however, sheer fantasy.

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.

The fact that the jihadists themselves call themselves jihadists -- mujahedin -- seems to matter not at all.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the
administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a
tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global
domination by an Islamic caliphate."

That is certainly true. Terrorism is a tactic and not an opponent.
But there is no indication that the Obama Administration has any
intention of confronting all the entities that are working in various
ways to establish an Islamic caliphate.

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other
terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving
threat" — should not be called "a global war."

Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S. Not a
global war.

Comments

Obama Surrenders to Global Jihad: "The War on Terror is Over"

"We want the occupation of Islam in the entire world. Islam does not permit democracy or election." (more here)

Of all the incomprehensible assahattery, this beats all. Obama, the jihad president, has all but surrendered to the global jihad. If we had declared war on Islamic jihad, that would be one thing. But Islamic fundamentalists declared war on the West, and they haven't surrendered. We have.

This is proof positive of every prediction and analysis I made during the election. The accusations against me and those who shared my view flew fast and furious. Obama was born a Muslim and raised in the largest Muslim country in the world. He studied Koran and took Islamic studies while growing up in Jakarta. He never left Islam. And I wrote at Israel National News back in 2007 that it mattered. "Right wing nuts" were accused of fear mongering and of calling Obama a secret Muslim. Frankly, it doesn't matter if Obama is or isn't a secret Muslim. If he were a "crypto Muslim," what would he do differently? Nothing. The abandonment of the Jewish people to jihad, the backing of the mullahcracy in Iran, the tacit approval of Hamas and Hezballah, the Cairo speech, the attendance to the Alliance of Civilizations summit in Istanbul, the invitation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference secretary general to the White House, the backing of Ahmadinejad ally Venezuela, the creation of a high level division at the State department for outreach to the ummah (Muslim world community), the Department of Justice sponsoring an ISNA conference booth, the deliberate vacancy of the envoy on Anti-Semitism, the list goes on and on ..................

"War on terror" was always a deeply flawed term, but the Obama
Administration is not discarding it in favor of any more realistic or
accurate alternative. "White House: 'War on terrorism' is over:
'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms," by Jon Ward
and Eli Lake in the Washington Times, August 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism
official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside
the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said
John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who
outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its
violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous
agenda."

And of course that agenda is advanced via terrorism, as well as by other means, but never mind.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the
administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific
directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used
the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but
has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama
administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create
an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign
governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic
institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will
do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is
wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to
purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which
"risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately
seek but in no way deserve."

The unspoken assumption is that the United States has the power or
prestige in the Islamic world to confer or deny Islamic legitimacy.
This is, however, sheer fantasy.

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.

The fact that the jihadists themselves call themselves jihadists -- mujahedin -- seems to matter not at all.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the
administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a
tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global
domination by an Islamic caliphate."

That is certainly true. Terrorism is a tactic and not an opponent.
But there is no indication that the Obama Administration has any
intention of confronting all the entities that are working in various
ways to establish an Islamic caliphate.

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other
terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving
threat" — should not be called "a global war."

Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S. Not a
global war.